Mark Duggan.

[Old Skier]

They did yes, and 8 of the 10 believed he wasn't armed when shot - just what point are you trying to make here?

That it's what - they thought the firearms officer thought - that matters.

 

[gmc40]

Correct, which is why if you read my post properly, in conjunction with the post I quoted, you will see that I stated that the jury could not be asked the question that gmc40 suggested. They were asked whether they (the jury) thought he was armed.

Read the below, it may help you understand what I mean. V53's defence was that he honestly thought Duggan was holding the gun and going to pull the trigger. The jury believed him and that's why they found it a lawful killing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25671401

 

[chrisd]

He had to get out of his car with his gun in hand, he had to do so as he threw it 20 yards( I think ) and he couldn't do that sitting in the car.

The officer may have just seen a flash of the gun and didn't see him throw it!

 

[stevie_r]

That it's what - they thought the firearms officer thought - that matters.

The jury were not asked if they thought that the firearms officers thought he was armed. They were asked if they (the jury) thought he were armed.

 

[stevie_r]

He had to get out of his car with his gun in hand, he had to do so as he threw it 20 yards( I think ) and he couldn't do that sitting in the car.

The officer may have just seen a flash of the gun and didn't see him throw it!

It was thrown before a firearms officer had reached the pavement

 

[gmc40]

The jury were not asked if they thought that the firearms officers thought he was armed. They were asked if they (the jury) thought he were armed.

But they couldn't have found it a lawful killing without considering the question. Read the link I posted.

 

[Old Skier]

The jury were not asked if they thought that the firearms officers thought he was armed. They were asked if they (the jury) thought he were armed.

But as they weren't there I think they (as I suggested) had to give their verdict based on the evidence that was given which was that the person who pulled the trigger thought the scrote was armed.

 

[woody69]

Please do not try to lecture me on the carrying of a weapon in dangerous circumstances.

And how, pray tell am I doing that?

 

[stevie_r]

You have absolutely no way of confirming if either of those statements are true. Unless you work within the Police as an armed officer I also don't think you are in a place to be able to comment. The officer had a split second to react and as far as he was concerned Duggan posed a threat and appeared to be carrying a weapon, was confrontational and aggressive. His intelligence said he had a gun and he had something in his hand. You have a split second to make a decision as a firearms officer who doesn't have the ability of hindsight to know he has made the wrong decision.

Because you don't have to be an armed officer in the police to work under those sorts of stresses and dangers involving firearms.

 

[Andy]

Because you don't have to be an armed officer in the police to work under those sorts of stresses and dangers involving firearms.

Ok you were in the army, how many times did you look down the barrel and have to make a split second decision?

 

[stevie_r]

Ok you were in the army, how many times did you look down the barrel and have to make a split second decision?

Several

 

[Andy]

Several

And you squeezed first?

 

[stevie_r]

Has no one come up with an answer yet, or seen fit to comment on the anomalies in the jury answers to the questions yet?

ie 9 people agreed that he had thrown the pistol away onto the grass but 2 thought he was still armed? that bit really is confusing

 

[stevie_r]

Last post from me as I'm getting bored with the 'bad man shot by police, police are good guys, therefore lawful/ deserved' level of non-thought.

Ah well, last pound of flesh for the riots i suppose.

 

[Andy]

Has no one come up with an answer yet, or seen fit to comment on the anomalies in the jury answers to the questions yet?

ie 9 people agreed that he had thrown the pistol away onto the grass but 2 thought he was still armed? that bit really is confusing

I don't need to question the jury. He had a gun, he was a drug dealer. You don't get shot for he haw, knifed maybe.

He brought misery upon many, he wont be missed.

Fancy a game of paintball?

 

[gmc40]

Last post from me as I'm getting bored with the 'bad man shot by police, police are good guys, therefore lawful/ deserved' level of non-thought.

Ah well, last pound of flesh for the riots i suppose.

Ok cheers

 

[doublebogey7]

Has no one come up with an answer yet, or seen fit to comment on the anomalies in the jury answers to the questions yet?

ie 9 people agreed that he had thrown the pistol away onto the grass but 2 thought he was still armed? that bit really is confusing

Read the verdict again! 8 were sure he was unarmed 1 felt on the balance of probabilities that he was armed and the other felt on the balance that he was not armed. No contradiction there.

 

[Old Skier]

Several

57 man on the balcony

 

[woody69]

Because you don't have to be an armed officer in the police to work under those sorts of stresses and dangers involving firearms.

You have completely misinterpreted my post. I am not saying you have to be an armed officer to understand the stresses and dangers of working with firearms. I was stating that you have no way of knowing if Duggan posed a threat at that precise moment as you weren't there (I assume) and you have no way of judging the officer involved about his ability to do his job based on that one incident and hindsight.

Just because you were in the army (which I assume you were based on some of your answers) it doesn't mean you automatically understand exactly what happened at that specific time.